Zevachim

[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar];1 surely the inner altar had no base!2 ‘Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But is it written, ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’? surely it is written, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!’3 — If ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’ were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base;4 now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base.5 [Thereupon] R. Ishmael said: For the roof of the base, why do I need a text? [this would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the roof; then the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement, is it not logical that it requires the roof [of the base]? Said R. Akiba: If the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the roof of the base, is it not logical that the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement and comes for atonement, requires the roof of the altar? If so, why does Scripture state, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’? To teach: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering. Wherein do they differ?6 — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They disagree as to whether [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. One master holds: It is indispensable, while the other master holds: It is not indispensable.7 R. Papa said: All agree that the residue is not indispensable, but here they disagree as to whether the draining out of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable or not:8 one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar:9 Why is ‘the bullock’ stated?10 It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base:11 that is the view of R. Akiba.12 Said R. Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortiori: if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation13 needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation,14 is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R. Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary15 either as a statutory obligation or as a regulation needs the base, that whose blood enters the innermost sanctuary as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it:16 therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning,17 which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete:18 these are the words of R. Ishmael. Now an a fortiori argument can be made in respect of the anointed priest's bullock: If that whose blood does not enter within either as a statutory obligation or, as a regulation,19 needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation,20 is it not logical that it needs the base?21 You might think that it is indispensable for it; therefore Scripture says, ‘And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out’: the Writ transmutes it into the remainder of a precept22 to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable. 23 Now, does R. Ishmael hold that the draining of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable? Surely the school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out’: that which is left must be drained out, could not refer to sin-offerings, whose blood was sprinkled on all the horns of the altar, including the south-east. Hence it would have to refer to the burnt-offering alone; but in that case Scripture should write, at the base of the burnt-offering, which would intimate that the blood of the burnt-offering must be sprinkled over against the base. The word ‘altar’ then becomes redundant. top surface (roof) of a cubit. there is no statutory obligation for the offering at all, as he need not have sinned. the base is not one of them. and their blood was poured out there. just been stated that it is not one. If it is retained, we must explain that it is called a statutory obligation only by comparison with the blood of other sin-offerings, which does not enter within at all. interpreted as teaching that it is indispensable. Therefore he proceeds to shew that it is not indispensable. thus: and he shall take . . . and he shall sprinkle etc. The different grammatical form in this case shews that this pouring out is, as it were, not an integral part of the rite, but the remaining portion of it, which should be done, yet is not indispensable.